Outreach updates

<Andrew> Vision Australia ran the first of
its regular series of Web Accessibility Workshops [1] this week in Melbourne
with 20 participants and we are already booked out for two workshops in
Canberra in two weeks time. Web Accessibility seems to be increasingly on
developers radar here which is great.

We have also been asked to speak to some key groups about Web Accessibility -
yesterday Sofia Celic spoke to a group of Ombudsman's communication officers,
and next week I am speaking to a forum of the public libraries online
database group [2].

Shawn: Here are a few bits I found online about checkboxes
vs. drop-downs.
DISCLAIMER: I picked these up quickly during the call, so they are not vetted
nor are they a complete list.

"If possible, use radio buttons rather than drop-down menus. Radio buttons
are better because they make all options permanently visible so that users
can easily consider them. Radio buttons are also easier to operate for users
who have difficulty making precise mouse movements. (Limited space might
sometimes force you to violate this guideline, but do try to keep choices
visible whenever possible.)" - http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20040927.html

"If the field allows for multiple selections, try your best to avoid using
the so-called �multi-select� box. This form element is at best confusing
to users and at worst, it makes the form useless to those who do not
immediately understand its functionality." -
http://www.alistapart.com/articles/sensibleforms

"- When users are unfamiliar with the items in a list, radio buttons can
assist them by communicating the domain at a glance
- On forms that will be used frequently, radio buttons are far easier and
faster because they don't have to be opened and are easier to take in a
glance" - http://www.guuui.com/browse.php?cid=146

There are a bunch more...

Shadi: The preference seems to be check boxes.
Issue seems to be one of the visual lay out. The issue of visual layout will
be worked off line.

<Harvey> Do the languages need to include
text in those languages?

Shadi: Let change to the issue of language

Liam: Cookie so that it defaults to the
person's language

Shawn: May want to put on list of future
options

Judy: Is the languages of the tool interface or
the language to be tested?

Helle: Refers to to comment she sent earlier
about the simple search and this list

Judy: Best on discussion, let's use 'language
of the tool'

<shawn> ACTION, shawn/shadi: eval tools:
limit width of fieldset boxes to longest item, and have next one start just
to the right. (will especially help w/ screen magnification)

Shadi: Let's discuss web technologies?
Concerns?

Judy: Will new users know to be able to select
from the list?

Andrew: Since we are doing a simple search,
let's combine some options such as HTML or XHTML.

Wayne: Add an 'all' or 'don't know' option

Jack: Have an 'all' option that is the default
and have it checked.

Judy: Are these the choices we want to give
people for the simple search? What are the 2 or 3 questions we should give
people?

Shawn: What things can I select that are
meaningful to me and will help filter the list?

Judy: Suggests 'guidelines' and 'functionality'
as the 2 categories that should be used for the simple search.

Helle: What does accessible mean? Does that
mean that the tool itself is accessible?

Shawn: If want to use 'functionality', I think
must have explanation at end.

Shadi: Votes for language and guidelines

Shawn: I want to raise a concern about whether
guidelines should be a category. Will it raise the issue of multiple sets of
guidelines rather than viewing W3C guidelines as normative?

Wayne: Sometimes people will be coming into the
issue of filling accessibility issues and wanting a tool because of a
specific legal requirements such as 508 or national requirement.

Judy: Propose that we go ahead with the simple
search page with just languages and functionality and re-doing format
... Let's talk about the advance search

Andrew: Labels. should be short and clear

Judy: What are constraints for labels?

Shawn: Is fieldset common as label for group of
checkboxes? Or, just use a text label?

Wayne: Do we need a paragraph or sentence that
describes what the category is searching on?

Shawn: Provide a short phrase, rather than trying
to make label short & clear

Judy: What if we broke the list into two
sections. Tool characteristics and tool testing?

Justin: There are several ways that the list
could be grouped.

Wayne: Should we leave it to the task force to
figure out the grouping categories?

Judy: Since we want to reach closure with this
we should probably specify the categories. What is the reaction on Shawn's
idea of having a short name and a sentence explanation as needed?

Shawn: you wanted to ask about linking the
fieldset label to a description in Selecting Tools

Shadi: the details of what you see is not a
complete list
... Explains more about platforms and what that means per discussion with
Wayne and Justin

Outreach

Judy: Update and request from Wayne about
Accessibility Policy for CSU Long Beach

Prior to the meeting Wayne sent the following to the
list:

Wayne's email: The committee I Chair is writing
the Accessibility Policy for CSU Long Beach right now. Do any of you know of
any university accessibility policies that are especially good. This Campus
IT Committee will be developing policies and operational procedures for
security and accessibility. In general we will monitor all human factors
issues as we tighten security, but we will make sure that we don't break and
even improve accessibility as we do it. I will appreciate any pointers to
preexisting policy.

Pasquale: Hi Wayne, Bologna University has a
Accessibility Policy for its Web site
http://www.unibo.it/Portale/Strumenti+del+Portale/Accessibilita/
default.htm If you want I can translate it into English ;-)

Charmane Corcoran:We
are in process of updating our Web Accessibility Statement of Encouragement.
There appears to be a fundamental shift in logic behind the development of
Higher Ed Accessibility statements that I can share offline, if you are
interested. I am currently MSU's representative on the CIC Accessibility
Group which includes all of the Big 10 schools. I am slated to present on the
topic at the next meeting. Until our revised Statement is made public, I
cannot comment specifically on the list. However, I can give you a heads up
on the issues we are working on if you want to give me a call.

During the meeting there was additional
discussion:

George: They are in the process of creating
one.

Wayne: The key issue seems to be how to deal
with on-line course materials

Template for Accessibility Evaluation Reports

Judy: Background and scope.
... Purpose was to provide a consistent framework for reporting evaluation
results
... The audience included expert evaluators to be consistent with their peers
and novice evaluators who needed to have a form or standard of what to
should included

Shawn: Concerned about whether it meets a broad
need.
... How should the scope be changed to make it more useful?

Judy: Think about this page and be prepared to
discuss next week. What needs to be changed? How? How can it be improved?